If you put it that way, same as a Mercedes is pointless compared to a Ferrari F60. But then again, I don't seek perfection and you're somehow contradictory since mVR is free, as in cheapest software solution. If money would bother me so much, then I would build my personal IMAX.

Take real audiophiles for example (not audiophiles wannabes), they invest a lot of money with their obsession, but you won't see them using a PC as source with Foobar2000, AIMP2 or other decent audio software... but hardware all the way...

high end audio gear and computers don't mix indeed.

well you said your LCD was at least 2yo, it's a dinosaur now

I think they sell improved gasoline for sport cars, you're more prone to notice its effect on a Ferrari than on a Skoda...if your LCD monitor is the weakest link, there's really no point in wasting time/money and energy on improving the source IMO.

add the anti-glare panel on top of it, and MTF sharpness is just down the drain...no matter what you'll do, the panel itself will always be the weakest link.

I personnaly cannot stand polycarbonate glasses(they give me the feeling to watch through recycled Coke bottles, which they are...technically )

anyway, we should all enjoy our current set ups(I sure as hell do!) and eagerly wait for the next madVR update....so much time has passed, it'll be a blast for sure

As I said, every technology has its weaknesses. Going CRT-LCD was such a wonderful gift to my eyes, no more lame geometry problems. Letters are letters, not a blurry mess. The sensation of perfectly defined lines was amazing. I don't care about MFT sharpness, the faulty geometry kills sharpness and perceived resolution a lot more. However color reproduction and other things were (and still are except in very few models) just terrible.

About the mineral glass light dispersion, while that's true in the end what matters is how it looks, and for me reflections caused by the glass were a lot more "experience killers" than any advantage the glass could have. I don't care if polycarbonate has twice the light dispersion or if the anti-glare panel scatters the light coming from the monitor if the image that has to go through it perfectly defined, in the end you still have a much more detailed and sharp image than any CRT can produce. To each its own

Take real audiophiles for example (not audiophiles wannabes), they invest a lot of money with their obsession, but you won't see them using a PC as source with Foobar2000, AIMP2 or other decent audio software... but hardware all the way...

Since I've been on that road I can tell you that being an Audiophile is a more like a mental disses, cause you get obsessed with perfection and never find it, you always feel like you're close but never there, so you end up spending thousands of dollars on audio equipment and you love it at first, your personal bliss but with time passing you find some small imperfections which becomes huge, cause your obsession with them you end up feeling like there's so much room for more improvement... Loosing my job was a cure for me, cause being short on money for investment had to keep my audio listing obsession for later, and that brake give me enough time to realize I was just getting crazy on a search for perfection, kinda like this guys... How can you tell the difference from real audiophiles and audiophile's wannabees, you ask? That's simple, those that are satisfied with a PC as a source for their sound, using for example an Omega Claro paired with a sennheiser HD 600 and acting as if they reached bliss, are just audiophile wannabees compared to those that own more then 3 high- fidelity (hi-fi) combinations (for example) and still unsatisfied. It's not about listening to music anymore, it's about a obsession with sound reproduction...

leeperry's example of so called video perfection looks like it's going in the same direction but this time it's obsession with video reproduction.

Quote:

well you said your LCD was at least 2yo, it's a dinosaur now

CRT's are much older and you praise on those... Still have my dell p1130 (which is actually a sony g520 inside).I use it about 3 years so is still working fine, but now I keep it in the basement. Was hopping to replace that with a SED which never came...

How can you tell the difference from real audiophiles and audiophile's wannabees, you ask? That's simple, those that are satisfied with a PC as a source for their sound, using for example an Omega Claro paired with a sennheiser HD 600 and acting as if they reached bliss, are just audiophile wannabees compared to those that own more then 3 high- fidelity (hi-fi) combinations (for example) and still unsatisfied. It's not about listening to music anymore, it's about a obsession with sound reproduction...

Again, no true Scotsman...

You can't claim "real" audiophiles behave as such and the others to be "wannabes" just cause you believe it.

leeperry's example of so called video perfection looks like it's going in the same direction but this time it's obsession with video reproduction.

CRT's are much older and you praise on those... Still have my dell p1130 (which is actually a sony g520 inside).I use it about 3 years so is still working fine, but now I keep it in the basement. Was hopping to replace that with a SED which never came...

the biggest difference is that I'm very happy w/ my current set up...I'm not cursed w/ the "upgraditis" disease audiophiles all have to go through.

what I care the most about is smoothness and optical sharpness...and I get both w/ CRT and DLP

CRT's just plain work, it's a mature technology...LCD is still worthless nowadays, so a +2yo LCD monitor would be even worse.

oh come on I myself own a Kuro KRP-500 and had a Trinitron-based 21" CRT, but my NEC 2690 LCD is still the best (and widest-gamut) monitor for photography I've used. CRT's can't have perfect convergence at the borders, and pixel mapping is not 1:1, makes it a bit difficult to judge some aspects of digital photography. For video it might be OK I guess, but LCD is not that bad either.

oh come on I myself own a Kuro KRP-500 and had a Trinitron-based 21" CRT, but my NEC 2690 LCD is still the best (and widest-gamut) monitor for photography I've used. CRT's can't have perfect convergence at the borders, and pixel mapping is not 1:1, makes it a bit difficult to judge some aspects of digital photography. For video it might be OK I guess, but LCD is not that bad either.

how is a wider gamut a good thing exactly? my CRT almost has a perfect SMPTE-C gamut, love it! I don't even bother w/ gamut conversion on it...and AFAIK sRGB/HDTV/REC709(3 names for the same thing) is all you need for photos.

yes convergence in the corners is not too great, but at least it doesn't have a native res.

anyway all the available technologies are made of compromises, the LCD drawbacks are not acceptable to me(low CR, plastic design, etc)....some find CRT or DLP unaccepatble too, it's a free world

For photos you can use wider gamuts because different devices have different color spaces. A proof in a wider gamut monitor whose color space overlaps better with the printer's is going to look closer to the print. sRGB is good because it's standard, easy to use and all, but it's a compromise nevertheless. I've had a couple of printers that can do colors outside of the sRGB space, and Adobe RGB worked well with them. Some use Prophoto RGB (I do sometimes) for having even a wider space, but when you have such a wide space, higher bit depth than 8-bit might be required.

sRGB ii still all right though, perfectly usable especially when you want perfect compatibility and you don't control the whole processing chain (like sending to a print lab).

the narrower the gamut, the happier I am! but OK, photo is a completely different world, then yes I guess wide gamut has a good reason to exist after all...because it will take a while before we see xvYCC movies on BD

well, CRT's don't have viewing angle issues for instance...this is improving w/ every new LCD generation as I understand it(TN blablabla), anyway I think we just need to agree to disagree

and it would appear that some big LCD TV's can do 24/25p...but how about your average LCD computer monitor? last time I checked all they were offering was 60Hz, and sometimes a bloated 75Hz that was internally processed in 60 anyway.

IPS LCD panels don't have viewing angle issues either. You have to search and pay for them, just like you do with good CRTs. Also you can buy glossy monitors if you hate matte plastic so much.

"Average" (250€, might be considered expensive for others) computer monitors will give you true 100Hz and 120Hz, pure smoothness for all common frame rates in existence, not to mention how good everything not video related that can produce "unlimited" fps like games, the simple movement of the mouse, etc. looks... it's just another world. But the panel technology is not there yet. The market is going to be flooded soon with more 120Hz monitors because of all the 3D mumbo jumbo, then we will have IPS panels, 120Hz and LED backlighting with local dimming in the same monitor/TV

After reading you one would say that the best LCD you have ever seen is one of those crappy, old ass 17" displays

I vaguely remember something called madVR... and this thread being devoted to its development instead of 'arguing' the most fundamental minutae of HTPC playback...

I know this doesn't happen that often on doom9, but usually when the perpetually oblivious wander into a forum and decide to make a spectacle of themselves, you let them hem and haw and, eventually, they'll get bored and wander off. You never, ever respond. The guy came on here and insisted, at length, on an HTPC forum, that 60hz is obviously sufficient for film playback. Why are we indulging this?

Here's to madshi, his excellent work on madVR and to the release of 0.12 when it's ready. Also, here's for not needing to be told by some bumbling transient as to why, or why not, madVR is a useful tool for the doom9 community and the video community at large.

After reading you one would say that the best LCD you have ever seen is one of those crappy, old ass 17" displays

alright, sounds like they are improving indeed! OTOH, the native res is still a major issue, how many ppl w/ 22" are forced to buy very expensive graphic cards to play recent games? I can play in XGA on my 19", I can also watch movies in 720p or 1080p if I feel like it, hell I can even play old W98 games in 640x480 if I fancy it...not much can be done about that on LCD I'm afraid.

there's no doubt that those cheap 22/24" screens are driving the high end graphic cards market...and I'm still doubtful about the actual CR(after calibration) of those 22/24" PC monitors(they prolly will have a hard time exceeding 600:1 and will never reach >1000:1).